24 August 2018

Facebook tags Australian media as fake news for exposing corrupt cops?

Let's just put aside the technicalities that the news article in this post is owned by an organisation called the Nine Entertainment Co Holdings Limited, where the focus is on the word entertainment.

What would be of significance is that the article is from an apparently trusted and verified source.

What would also be of significance is that the article is about police corruption where in this case Victoria Police committed the crime of assault and tampered with evidence.

See post from social media:

The person who brought attention to this action by Facebook also writes:

"So . . . Facebook flagged this post as "spam". Could it be that the "police officers" who monitor my facebook posts and who track my mobile phone as well as stalk and harrass me, have nominated this as spam because they don't like truth and NEWS stories which were published on Nine.com.au and in the Herald Sun about a "thug police" [direct quote from the Herald Sun] officer who assaulted a teenager, deleted evidence and laid false charges against the teen, being spoken about online.

THE INDISPUTABLE FACTS: When I was detained while not under arrest in 2012 by a Mill Park Constable I was charged with assault despite not assaulting anyone. My video recording was deleted by police however my audio recording caused the magistrate to dismiss the assault charges. I beat hinder and language charges in the county court. Since then I have been kidnapped by police on at least four occasions, assaulted, falsely imprisoned and falsely charged several times. I wish that none of this were true however all of it is 100% factual.

The article which facebook removed while saying it appears to be spam is attached, below. George Koromilas, it appears that this police officer got off very lightly for the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice a crime that carries a maximum 25 year term."

It seems that there are many more issues within Victoria Police that the mainstream media and therefore the 'public' are not aware of.

Are the actions of Victoria Police within the Code of Conduct?

Read the article from 23 Aug 2018 by 9news.com.au of the headline:

Cop jailed for punching teen and deleting evidence

A Melbourne police officer has been jailed for punching a teenager in the face and trying to cover it up by charging the boy with assault.

The victim wiped away tears as he left the County Court after now suspended senior constable Simon Mareangareu was sentenced to 12 months' prison.

The then 17-year-old and his 16-year-old friend were headed home in the early hours of Christmas morning 2014 when Mareangareu stopped and told them they were suspected of committing burglaries and graffiti.

senior constable Simon Mareangareu was sentenced to 12 months' prison. (Nine)

At trial, Mareangareu admitted he had no such suspicion but was just "poking the bear".

The younger boy pulled out his phone and started recording while the officers took their details, capturing the moment when Mareangareu grabbed the older boy by the ear or the shoulder strap of his backpack.

When the teen swatted the officer's hand away, Mareangareu punched him in the jaw, declaring "you f***ing assaulted me ... don't f***ing hit police".

Judge Jeanette Morrish said there was no lawful excuse for now 54-year-old Mareangareu's actions and that he was the initial aggressor.

The teens were arrested and it was only hours later when the younger boy was reunited with his phone that he realised his video of the incident had been deleted.

Ffter the younger boy's father hired an expert to recover the video the real story was revealed. (Nine)

Mareangareu put together a brief and statements against the boys, which didn't mention his initial grabbing of the boy or the existence of the video.

While there was no evidence he had deleted the footage, she accepted he knew about it and by not presenting it, was covering up his own crimes, risking wrongful convictions for the teenagers and possible grievous consequences for them.

The court also heard Mareangareu blamed the boy when discussing the case with the teen's mother, telling her her son was "fired up and wanted to have a crack at the coppers and lost".

It was only after the younger boy's father hired an expert to recover the video that the real story was revealed and charges against the teens were dropped.

Judge Morrish said she agonised over a sentence for Mageangareu, a decorated police officer who risked his own life twice on duty to prevent suicides and a third time off duty to save a man from drowning.

When the teen swatted the officer's hand away, Mareangareu punched him in the jaw, declaring "you f***ing assaulted me ... don't f***ing hit police". (Nine)

But his failure to apologise or show appreciation of the harm he caused were aggravating features of his crimes.

Mageangareu was convicted of common assault and perverting the course of justice.

"Your conduct was disgraceful and utterly abhorrent," she told him.

He was also fined $5000.

22 August 2018

Isn't the weather independent of technology?

Chemtrails is a 'conspiracy theory', right?

After all, only 'activists' (you know those pesky people) produce films based on conspiracy theory, right?

(illustration source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTjD_6NsoUg)

An article from 2012 on the website australianscience.com.au states:

"Cloud engineering research is underway at the University of Washington as a potential tool to ease climate change, but at this point is only at the initial stages."

See article at: http://www.australianscience.com.au/chemistry-2/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory/

So, apparently in the United States of America, 'chemtrails' is only at the "initial stages".

The US government had satellites in orbit for 10 years before they debated to tell the general population.

Chemtrails cloud engineering was used by the U.S. in Vietnam.

In Australia or rather to be more specific, in Victoria, cloud engineering was enshrined in a law called Rain-making Control Act 1967, or commonly known by its longer name of:
"An Act to regulate certain Rain-making and other Cloud-modification Processes, to make Provision with respect to Claims for Damages against Persons lawfully engaged therein and for other purposes"

as seen in document below:

See current Austlii reference at:


21 August 2018

People in government committing the Commonwealth offence of tampering with mail

With the help of this invention called social media on the government carriageway called the internet, the general population have been able to share information at blistering speeds, something the colonialists would never have dreamed of during the early days of this penal colony.

While during the early days of the internet, people may have written to various government departments for example, inquiring as to whether the Bill of Rights is valid in whichever state they live in, this information remained with the authors and maybe few others. 

Today this information can be shared all around the world instantaneously. 

As a result of this quick information sharing, this has led to other people asking questions that people in government do not want to answer, keeping in mind that the people in government are there to represent their constituents.

We have obtained documentation that the people within the doors of the business we call the Parliament of Victoria (ABN: 57 505 521 939) are tampering with Australia Post with regards to receiving letters that contain questions that they do not wish to answer.

Keep in mind that some of the better government information is the documentation that they do no want the general population to see. 

Aren't they supposed to be governing with 'hounour' ?

Officially, in Australia, tampering with mail is a Commonwealth offence irrespective whether  it's from Australia Post or another mail carrier or delivery service which as a result of conviction includes a prison sentence.

It is truly pointless exposing names of those involved, as at the end of the day there is no real remedy in action that will see prosecution of the alleged criminal actions by the persons from within government, literally as always.

What we will say is that the good people of Victoria  are being conned on a scale that may not be comprehensible to the average commoner.

Let's just say for starters that not one person within the judicature is in 'honour'.

19 August 2018

London’s Met Police facial recognition trial proves to be a farce

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE’S controversial facial recognition trial has proved fruitless, with the force revealing it has resulted in no arrests.

The equipment was positioned on a prominent pedestrian bridge in a bid to identify criminals using autonomous technology.

Critics asked the Met not to use it and cited human rights laws, believing the use of facial recognition systems constituted an invasion of privacy. But the police went on using the system regardless.

However, it didn’t prove to be a particularly useful crime-fighting tool, as Scotland Yard noted the system didn’t contribute to a single arrest, although it remained tight-lipped on how many people were flagged for questioning.

“This deployment formed an important part of ongoing trials and a full review of its use will take place once they have been completed,” explained Detective Superintendent Bernie Galopin.

“It is important to note all the faces on the watch list used during the deployment were of people wanted by the Met and the courts for violence-related offences."

“If the technology generated an alert to signal a match, police officers on the ground reviewed the alert and carried out further checks to confirm the identity of the individual. All alerts against the watchlist will be deleted after 30 days and faces in the database that did not generate an alert were deleted immediately.”

Scotland Yard said the Stratford operation would be ‘overt’, with police informing passers-by of the  cameras’ presence, both audibly and with leaflets. But that would require busy Londoners to actually notice the signs.

Meanwhile privacy activists, including the advocacy group Liberty, have denounced the scheme, with some dubbing it “staggeringly inaccurate”.

It’s not hard to see why activists are so vehemently opposed. In May, it was found that a shocking 98% of the Met’s facial recognition technology was inaccurate. Not only would this serve to embroil innocent people in criminal cases, but it could lead police to prematurely relinquish dangerous suspects.

Even when the false positives are omitted from the system, the ethical dilemma endures.

Source: Computer Shopper, Issue 368.